Hmmmm

In D.C. space is at a premium. Air & Space has a new location at Dulles; perhaps that track could be elsewhere in the area, with the historic (and possibly visiting) engines running a show. Maybe along the B&O at, say, Halethorpe?

Electric City Trolley Museum Association

> If unlimited funds were available, yes
> repairs could be made ad infintum to keep
> such equipment 'whole'. But wouldn't we end
> up with something akin to the 'original'
> hatchet used by George Washington? 100%
> authentic and original, but three new heads
> and six new handles over the years.

To beat the proverbial dead horse some more...

When an any rolling stock or locomotive arrives at a museum... it's usually pretty well "consumed" already. The remaining "original fabric" usually consists of parts that are non-moving, non-rusting, non-rotting and haven't been damaged by wear or accident. The stuff that wears has already been replaced several times in the 20-30 years the "artifact" was in service.

Also... weather, fungus, carpenter ants and termites have no respect for fabric, original or replacement.

For every foamer that visits a museum to see "original" fabric, you get about 999 individuals, the majority of whom know little or nothing about railroads... and they are the ones that pay your bills. They do not see piles of rusted iron and dry rotted timber as the last whatever... they see junk.

As for the Smithonsonian's lending policy... while the Institution is known as America's attic, they are more than just a museum. One could spend and entire day just listing the research, educational and outreach programs supported by the Institution. http://www.si.edu/ is a good place to start.

brianf425@yahoo.com

>Don't forget about removing all of the nickel/ chrome plating off of the rods and valve motion.

jasonsobczynski@yahoo.com

If operated, it
> should be done so lightly within the
> complex, as part of an engineer-type
> demonstration program. No attempts at
> Claytor-type death march excursions, but
> perhaps a little gentle movie work.

> The loco should NOT operate. It is a one of a kind COMPLETLEY original artifact unaffected by weather or vandals. How many steam locomotives are in that kind of original(from the end of their career)condition, and like Dave said their are plenty of engines out there sitting in parks with alot of their historic fabric already used up by the elements.
If it had not been for the Claytors how many millions of people would have never seen mainline steam first hand??? They did treat their engines very well until they could nolonger meet their needs, which is a much more digestable pracice than the practices of many tourist and museum operations out there. How many times have we heard or seen someone use up one loco and just move on to the next in line or say yeh we know that's a problem but it has not totally broken yet. Give them a little credit for keeping mainline steam alive into the mid 90's.

jasonsobczynski@yahoo.com

>> Even this thread is not reasurring. To annoy
> the majority of you I will repeat two of my
> basic rules of preservation:
> "Original" means what rolls
> through the museum door (not some fanciful
> idea of what the factory produced).
> Operation always, without exception, uses up
> the original fabric.

> Therefore the Smithsonian's operation of the
> John Bull and loaning of the steam tractor
> (if it is really as rare as described) were
> destructive and flatly unethical.

Boy, you really do have a different definition of original than I do. Original to me means original to the construction, never modified in any way. To take original as meaning what was left of an artifact after its service life ended is in my mind a stretch. By the way, the tractor talked about was not a steam tractor, but was an internal combustion engine. As I pointed out before, if this engine has been in constant use since it was built and never retired, by your definition it is still original? Like UP 844..never off the roster, but has had many items rebuilt, replaced etc over the years, what would original be for her?

>Don't forget about removing all of the nickel/ chrome plating...

why, whatever do you mean??? ;-)

"So clean you could eat off it"
SJHussar@aol.com

I agree. To reiterate what I've posted elsewhere on this thread, what finally winds up at a museum is usually pretty well consumed.

I'm familiar with several steam locomotives that were used in short line and logging service and just about every historic picture I've seen of them is different. Every owner and shop foreman seems to have left their mark. You can see where stuff has been welded on, torched off, and something else welded on again. Most everything that could wear was replaced or rebuilt at some point or another. What real difference does it make if we rebuild and replace them (in kind) again?

The question we should ask is: Who are we saving this stuff for, and how best do we serve them? None of us lives for ever and the conservation decisions we make, with luck, will make us heroes, but maybe villains, to those that succeed us.

brianf425@yahoo.com

> why, whatever do you mean??? ;-)

All that is missing is the faint odor of formaldahyde and flowers, I'm sure there are candles around there somewhere!

lamontdc@adelphia.net

Some see historical and archeological value in preserving the locomotive's physical condition as it was when last in revenue service. Others don't and see value in interpreting technology only in "living" operating condition. We've never yet gotten the two camps to agree on this board. The only thing that disappoints me when this subject comes up is the lack of goodwill with which extreme partisans of each point of view treat the other side. It's a mystery to me why we can't live and let live.

eledbetter@rypn.org

> Some see historical and archeological value
> in preserving the locomotive's physical
> condition as it was when last in revenue
> service. Others don't and see value in
> interpreting technology only in
> "living" operating condition.
> We've never yet gotten the two camps to
> agree on this board. The only thing that
> disappoints me when this subject comes up is
> the lack of goodwill with which extreme
> partisans of each point of view treat the
> other side. It's a mystery to me why we
> can't live and let live.

Especially when we are arguing over academic principles rather than real conditions. We have neither the resouces to conserve or operate other than a small fraction of the stuff we have collected.

There is no right or wrong - just practical and impractical.

dave

irondave@bellsouth.net

> Especially when we are arguing over academic
> principles rather than real conditions. We
> have neither the resouces to conserve or
> operate other than a small fraction of the
> stuff we have collected.

> There is no right or wrong - just practical
> and impractical.

> dave

It always strikes me as interesting when a group of learned folks at the "Real Museums" take series of artifacts and attempt to bring them to life to create a lost era. Coupla arrowheads, axeheads, bone needles etc. and you extrapolate the rest of the "fabric" and voila you have john q. public of ten thousand years ago. Try this with railroad equipment and you are greeted with hoots of derision. "just a fanciful notion of what came from the factory". Do the "biggies" have these problems ...try the redo on the sistine chapel and it makes our two camps look like real amateurs.

My candle is burning at both ends
It will not last the night
But oh my friends and oh my foes
What a wonderful light
(with apologies to miss dorothy)
And what the heck good is a box of candles???


lamontdc@adelphia.net

> We've never yet gotten the two camps to
> agree on this board. The only thing that
> disappoints me when this subject comes up is
> the lack of goodwill with which extreme
> partisans of each point of view treat the
> other side. It's a mystery to me why we
> can't live and let live.

I disagree. I think this particular thread has been marked by its civility. Certainly there is substantial disagreement between the "Preserve" vs. "Operate" camps, but there has been none of the flaming that has broken out on other threads. Maybe its because of the strict enforcement of the "No Flaming" rule on this board, but I thought the entire thread stayed civil throughout.


kevin.r.gillespie@verizon.net

Posted By: Erik Ledbetter

Some see historical and archeological value in preserving the locomotive's physical condition as it was when last in revenue service. Others don't and see value in interpreting technology only in "living" operating condition. We've never yet gotten the two camps to agree on this board. The only thing that disappoints me when this subject comes up is the lack of goodwill with which extreme partisans of each point of view treat the other side. It's a mystery to me why we can't live and let live.

Posted By: dave

Especially when we are arguing over academic principles rather than real conditions. We have neither the resources to conserve or operate other than a small fraction of the stuff we have collected.

There is no right or wrong - just practical and impractical.

END QUOTE-------------

I like to walk a middle ground. First, “HISTORY” is the sum total of two groups of people. Without people, there can be no history, either past or remembered. The first part is composed of those that have gone before, their tasks are complete and deeds are done remaining for the second group to judge. The Second Part is the civilization that has held those who have gone before and need to learn from their ancestor’s decisions for answers to the two questions, “Why is it this way?” and, “How do we get to tomorrow?” Within that second group of people is a subgroup to whom History is entrusted for preservation and *** interpretation ***. In the past this group was called “bard” or “story teller.” Today we call them “educator,” “curator,” or “historian.” The curator preserves the physical evidence of the past – keeping them in museums is much better than digging them out of local land fill when needed, the historian interprets both the written word and the artifacts of the past for the present, and to the educators lays the task of passing on that history to the old well as the young. The task of education, particularly for history, is the telling of a story. The Civil War re-enactors are an excellent example of telling as story with an intent to educate. Not only do the participants learn about the various battles they study, but so do those who casually watch, remember that the archaic meaning of the word “entertainment” was to learn by watching. I consider the operational steam to be “telling a story” to those who operate, watch, ride and admire, and oh by the way, help fund the preservation of the story and it’s telling.

I also accept that 1401 is preserved as an artifact of the age of steam and have little issue with it’s remaining sequestered in it’s display building. She has been set aside to remain as last used in it’s mundane role of transportation for the future to study. In effect a time capsule for historians of the future (and steam operators as well) to look at how it really was, not what has been passed down through time. Sort of a “ground truth.” To the curator falls the responsibility of maintaining the objects for the very uncertain future. It is for them to decide if an object serves the collection as a whole best as a preserved artifact or should be released for the telling of the story. These are the contentious decisions, because once released, it no longer an object of history so much as a teaching tool and subject to the FRA requirements, read “changed” or “modernized”, to tell that story. I don’t really think that an engine used in post steam times can be really restored to original condition without being really a replica. But that’s a fine distinction and a fine replica is almost as good as an artifact, but one has to remember that the restoration process is filled with interpretation and decisions of what is appropriate based on restoration decisions which limits their authenticity. Unfortunately, curators must often must make their decisions based not on the historical importance of the engine as an artifact, but as an operational engine, it’s future (funding) is more assured. A current example would be the restoration of the WW&F 9. This engine IMHO is an excellent candidate for preservation as an artifact. But I accept that restoration and operation by the WW&F will go a long way toward funding the museum and the preservation of it’s collection. I think it would be much better to build a replica of the WW&F #6 and/or #7 for operation and leave #9 for history’s sake in the round house. But that kind of funding is very much a pipe dream and the reality of the situation is that #9 best serves as a story teller within the limitations of money available.

Ed


ff1044@aol.com